It's always interesting to look at the motivations of leaders and the influences of Netanyahu of Ahmadinejad are somewhat foreign to most Americans making this a worthwhile read. That said, I find both of these men to be politicians first and foremost. This would mean that idealogy might often take a back seat. To the extent they draw their respective hard lines, they are likely considering the opinions of their constituents as much as any radical teachings they have been exposed to during their earlier years. We can hope that the populations of Israel and Iran might have some influence on the directions their countries take. The article provides the example of Hebron to illustrate how Netanyahu acted against his hard line ideology in the past. Maybe we can have hope that Ahmadinejad will soften some of his views given the recent developments in his country.

Of course we can't always look to the people to moderate the views of their leaders. History is filled with examples of people who were driven to an extreme given the right mix of radicalizing leadership and socio-economic factors. It is particularly disturbing that the 'wipe Israel off the map' rhetoric seems to resonate in Iran and contributes to Ahmadinejad's support. Even among Israelis with an Amalek "obsession," the view is less aggressive although it is clear that, through an argument for preemptive strikes, it can be extended to a more bellicose doctrine.

One point was made about the possibility that Israel would attack Iran's nuclear facilities without US approval. I can't imagine that this would be done any other way. Even if the US "wanted" Israel to take such action, it would probably still not grant its approval. If the US wanted such an attack done with its approval it would probably do it itself. This way the US has three political options relative to an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. The first is that Iran willingly backs down (unlikely). The second is that the US backs an attack in which case US military is used (politically unpopular around the world). The third is that the US condemns an attack committed by Israel (same result as the first and second but less politically damaging for the US). The US and Israel would prefer the first option as it is the least destabilizing although there are some factions within Israel that would see the benefit of a strong show of force (I think most in the US have learned that lesson).

NOTE TO THE TRANSLATOR: I doubt that the author attended Yonaton Netanyahu's "wake."

"The American Medical Association, Big Pharma and the biggest insurance companies" obviously stand to loose if there is any change to the status quo that has served each of them so well. But please Mr. Reich, at least admit that ordinary citizens may have reason to worry as well.

I feel that the healthcare issue needs to address two issues: a moral one and an economic one. On the moral front, we have too many uncovered individuals for a country as wealthy as ours. On the economic front, we spend too large a percentage of GDP on healthcare and this is unsustainable. As an individual who doesn't fit in any of the categories of opponents to the public plan that Reich mentions, I would like to find a way to cover all Americans in a way that curbs rising healthcare costs. I just do not believe that increased government involvement is going to achieve these two goals. There are too many examples of government involvement correlating with inefficiency, low quality, increased corruption and overall dissatisfaction to give me the comfort required to support this step beyond the point of no return toward a government controlled healthcare system.

(Separately, I'm tired of hearing about Medicare as an example of public healthcare done right. Medicare hemorrhages money. It is very popular because Medicare recipients are getting something for nothing while the price will be paid by later generations. Medicare's popularity should not be listed as one of its virtues. If the government created a program that gave everyone free ice cream on Fridays, the program would be very popular but it would be neither good for our health nor good for the budget.)

The good news: Glenn Greenwald continues to stay on top of an issue where he is absolutely correct and where a change in policy (in this case by NPR) could make a real difference. I'm not necessarily optimistic. Glenn was all over the FISA issue last year yet our elected officials (including Democrats and Obama) seem to have emerged unfazed.

The bad news: We live in a time where a controversy's weight can be emphasized by pointing out that a blog ran it "in a prominent headline all day long." ALL DAY LONG. Talk about a story having legs. A major civil rights issue is able to remain a major story on a liberal blog for an entire day!